There's a useful blog post on code review at Mozilla by Mozilla developer David
Humphrey on his blog: <http://vocamus.net/dave/?p=1569>.
I like his breakdown of different types of code reviews. It seems like at Mozilla there is
a lot of room for the patch submitter to indicate to reviewers what sort of review is
needed for a particular patch, ranging from requests for manual testing and careful
scrutiny all the way to what Humphrey calls "catechism reviews", in which the
committer uses a review request to announce her intent and solicit a basic sanity-check.
Unofficially such reviews do not exist at the WMF because we are all infallibly meticulous
and diligent about testing every branch of every code change. But unofficially they do, of
course. It'd be nice if such reviews were formally sanctioned (with whatever
qualifications). I'm interested to hear other people's thoughts.
--
Ori Livneh